Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, what the majority leader requested yesterday was not regular order. What would be consistent with regular order would be to send the Senate-passed budget over to the House of Representatives. And what the majority leader requested unanimous consent to do yesterday did not involve sending the American people to conference; it involved sending a small number of people to conference. And what the majority leader requested unanimous consent to do yesterday did not involve simply getting to a budget on which both Houses could agree. I do not think there is anyone here who would object to that--not one of us whom I am aware of. What we do object to--what I strongly object to--is any procedural trick that could be used to negotiate, behind closed doors in a backroom deal, an agreement to raise the debt limit or to raise taxes. The American people do not want that. They will not accept it, and frankly they deserve better. I have to admit I stood in a state of disbelief for a moment yesterday as I heard the majority leader say something to my friend, my colleague, the junior Senator from Texas. I at first assumed I must have misunderstood him because I thought I heard him utter words consistent with the suggestion that my friend, the junior Senator from Texas, was a schoolyard bully. I was certain the majority leader could not have meant that. He probably did not say that. Unfortunately, as I reviewed news accounts later on yesterday, I discovered that is exactly what he had said. Only the majority leader can tell us exactly what the majority leader meant by that. It is not my place to malign his motives. If I were do so, it would run me up against Senate rule XIX. Part 2 of Senate rule XIX says that no Senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by any form of words impute to another Senator, or to other Senators, any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator. Certainly that would have been in violation of rule XIX, part 2, had the majority leader actually said that and intended to do that, because when you accuse a colleague of being a schoolyard bully, it certainly is not a compliment. It is, in fact, accusing them of doing something or being something unbecoming. I, therefore, will leave it to the majority leader to tell us what exactly he meant. Things happen on this floor. Things happen in the legislative process. Things happen when we get into heated discussions about matters of important public policy that probably should not happen. Sometimes we say words we did not intend to say. Sometimes we say things that in the moment of weakness, perhaps we intended to say but should not have said. If, in fact, the majority leader slipped and said something he did not mean to say or recognizes now that he should not have said, then I invite him to come forward. I am confident my friend, the junior Senator from Texas, will promptly and frankly accept his apology. If, on the other hand, this was something else, then I think we need to examine this more closely. It is important to reiterate there certainly could not have been any legitimate basis for making this accusation about the junior Senator from Texas. All the junior Senator from Texas was asking is that if, in fact, we are being asked to give our consent, our unanimous consent, that means the consent of every Senator present, to send this budget resolution to conference committee, that it carry one important but simple qualification; that is, that this conference committee not be used as a ruse, whereby we create an environment in which you could develop a secret backroom deal for raising the debt limit or raising taxes without going through the regular order. That is the furthest thing that I can think of from being a schoolyard bully, simply making a very reasonable request that we go by the normal regular order rules of the Senate in order to do that. If there is any reason why my friend, the junior Senator from Texas, could ever be accused of being a schoolyard bully, I am not aware of it. It certainly was not evident in yesterday's debate and discussion on the floor. We are owed an explanation, to the extent that anyone was making the suggestion and, in fact, meant that. At the end of the day, I do not think any of us can dispute the fact that we face very difficult challenges in our country and that many of those challenges weigh heavily on us as Senators. That is why sometimes people say things they later regret, but that is what apologies are for. At the same time, we can speak with absolute certainty and unmistakable clarity in saying that while different Americans might approach this issue differently, while different Americans might take a different approach to raising taxes or raising the debt ceiling, one issue on which almost all Americans are united is the fact that these things ought to be debated and discussed in open and not through a secret backroom deal. The dignity of this process, the dignity of this body, our commitment to honor the constitutional oaths we have all taken as Senators demands nothing less. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I appreciate the cooperation and friendship of the senior Senator from Vermont. Mr. President, yesterday on the floor I discussed an initiative I launched this week called Protect2A to give voice to the millions of second amendment supporters around the United States who are very concerned about Congress enacting any new gun control measures. I am pleased to announce that we now have over 3,000 responses from citizens all across this country who are sharing their stories, their experiences, and their opinions about why they feel we should do everything in our power to protect their second amendment rights. I had only a brief time to share some of those stories yesterday and wish to use a few minutes today to share a few more. Kathy from the State of Virginia writes: My husband and I are senior citizens. He is a veteran of the U.S. Army. Over the past several years, we have seen our constitutional rights trampled and twisted, until we no longer trust that our government has our well-being as its primary concern. Last year, for the first time in our lives, we bought a gun, not only to ensure our safety against criminals, but to protect and defend our God-given rights as citizens. The most basic right of all mankind, the right to life itself, no longer exists in this country. Protecting our rights, the few the government has left us, is of the utmost importance to us and we will do everything necessary to hold onto those rights, regardless of the source of the threats against them. God bless America. Emily from Pennsylvania writes: I am 19 years old and I want to protect myself as soon as I am legal to. As a young female living in Allentown, PA, I don't like walking in the city because I'm afraid of something happening to me. I believe in the power of the Constitution and especially my second amendment rights. I am a strong conservative who believes that the Constitution is our guiding power and not the cronyism that seems to blanket DC. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. As soon as I am legal, I want to take gun safety classes and purchase a handgun of my very own. I like to think that I can protect my own life as well as another person whose life may be in danger. Gun control doesn't solve anything. Criminals will get guns no matter what. I want to be able to protect myself as well as someone else. Please don't take away my second amendment rights. Well said, Emily. William from Connecticut submitted the following statement: On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, my brother was confronted by three armed thugs in a parking lot. Out of their stolen car, with a stolen shotgun, they tried to rob him. Much to their surprise, my brother had his legally owned pistol (with a legal carry permit). He thwarted this and saved his own life and held them at bay until the police arrived. Without this second amendment he would've been another victim to the growing street crime that these bills do not address. These are the rights we are trying to protect by requiring a 60-vote threshold on any new gun control legislation. In so doing, we are trying to prevent the ability of Members to push through legislation before anyone has had time to read and evaluate the language and then tell the American people what that language means for them, what the language would mean for their rights. Unfortunately, this is exactly what we are faced with today. Yesterday Senators Toomey and Manchin announced a new proposal that is widely expected to replace the current language on the background checks in this bill. Yet, as of this morning, this very moment, not a single Senator has been provided the legislative text of this provision. Because the background check measure is the centerpiece of this legislation, it is critical that we all know what is in the bill before we vote on it. As I have argued on this floor, in the national media, and back home in my home State of Utah, we should not be legislating by negotiating closed-door, backroom deals away from the eyes of the American people. We should not be voting before we read and understand exactly how these proposals will affect the rights of law-abiding citizens and whether we can say with any level of certainty they will reduce crime. This is exactly why we need more debate and why I ask my colleagues to vote no on cloture--so Senators and the American people may fully understand the consequences of this legislation. To be clear, the vote we will have this morning will be to end debate on whether the Senate should take up a bill, the very heart of which is being concealed from the Senate and concealed from the American people as of this very moment. Proponents say the people deserve a vote. Don't they deserve to know what they are voting on? I think they do.

Mr. LEE. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, for several weeks now Washington and the rest of the country have been debating several new gun control proposals. Along with a number of my colleagues, including the minority leader, I have declared my intention to resist an immediate vote on any new restrictions that would serve primarily to limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens rather than reduce violent crime in America. Unfortunately, the current gun control proposals would do just that. More than 2 weeks ago, we informed the majority leader that we will exercise our procedural right to require a 60-vote threshold in order to bring this legislation to the floor. We have taken this step under our Senate rules and procedures for three principal reasons. First, the Senate serves an important function in our Republic by encouraging deliberation and making it more difficult for a temporary majority to impose its will unilaterally. Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate's rules and procedures allow for meaningful debate and help ensure that a bare majority of Senators cannot impose controversial legislation on the American people without robust debate, discussion, and broad-based and bipartisan consensus. Contrary to the statements made by the President and by some of my friends across the aisle and even a few from within my own caucus, we have no intention of preventing debate or votes. Quite the opposite. By objecting to the motion to proceed, we guarantee that the Senate and the American people would have at least 3 additional days to assess and evaluate exactly how this particular bill might affect the rights of law-abiding citizens and whether it might have any significant impact on violent crime. Already we have seen consensus against passing any new gun legislation--at least not without broad bipartisan support. During the recent budget debate, I offered an amendment to establish a two-thirds vote requirement for the passage of any new gun legislation. Six Democratic Senators voted with a nearly united Republican caucus to support my amendment by a vote of 50 to 49. That vote demonstrated that a bare majority of Senators, including at least six Democrats, believe that new gun legislation should have broad bipartisan support in the Senate before it is passed and before it has the opportunity to become law. A 60-vote threshold will help ensure that new gun laws are not forced through the Senate with the narrow support of just one party. Second, this debate is about a lot more than just magazine clips and pistol grips. It is about the purpose of the second amendment and why our constitutionally protected right to self-defense is an essential part of self-government. At its core, the second amendment helps ensure that individuals and local communities can serve as the first line of defense against threats to our persons and our property. Any limitation on this fundamental right of self-defense makes us more dependent on our government for our own protection. Government cannot be everywhere at all times, so the practical effect of limiting our individual rights is to make us less safe. This is troubling to many Americans. Any legislation that would restrict our basic rights to self-defense deserves serious and open debate. Further, as we have seen just today, Washington sometimes prefers to negotiate backroom deals made in secret far from the eyes of the American people rather than engaging in thorough, open, and transparent debate right on the Senate floor. The day before the majority leader has set the vote to proceed, the bill's critical components are still not there. Right before we have set the vote for the motion to proceed to the bill, we still do not know what these critical components look like. We have no legislative text to evaluate the so-called compromise language on background checks. We have no sense of what amendments, if any amendments at all, might be allowed to be offered. So requiring a 60-vote threshold helps us solve some of those problems. It helps us ensure that we have a meaningful debate rather than a series of backroom deals to push controversial legislation through Congress with solely a bare majority to back it up. Finally, many of the provisions we expect to see in the bill are both constitutionally problematic and would serve primarily to limit the freedoms of law-abiding American citizens. Some of the proposals--for example, universal background checks--would allow the Federal Government to surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their constitutional rights. One of the provisions we expect to see in the bill, based on what we saw in the Judiciary Committee on which I sit, would allow the Attorney General of the United States to promulgate regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns, something my constituents in Utah are very concerned about, and understandably so. You see, the Federal Government has no business monitoring where or how often we go to church, what books and newspapers we read, whom we vote for, our health conditions, what we ate for breakfast, and the details of our private lives, including our lawful exercise of rights protected by the second amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights. Such limitations may, of course, at times make it harder for the government to do what it believes it needs to do. But we have to remember, the Constitution was not written to maximize or protect the convenience of our government. The Constitution was written to protect individual liberty, and thankfully so. We must not narrow the application of constitutional protections in haste, nor should we allow a bare majority to jeopardize the basic rights of the American people, rights protected in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The Senate and the American people are engaged in an important debate. I look forward to this debate. I hope others will join me and my colleagues in demanding that our discussions take place in full view of the American people. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his cooperation in allowing me this time. The President of the United States has spent the last several weeks evoking the tragedy of Sandy Hook and highlighting the voices of the victims in an effort to promote his gun control proposals. He has not explained to the American people how any of these new gun control measures would have prevented that or any other terrible tragedy or how any of these measures would reduce gun violence in any measurable way. Instead, his proposals would serve primarily to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens. Recently, I launched a project called Protect2A, which is an attempt to reach out to those who are reluctant to see changes to our Bill of Rights, our Bill of Rights eroded, and believe Members of Congress should be doing everything in their power to protect the second amendment rights of citizens. This is also as we should be protecting all the rights protected by our Constitution. I am pleased to announce the response to Protect2A has been overwhelming. In less than 2 days, we have received well over 1,000 responses on my Web site. The vast majority of them recognized that the President's proposal will not make them safer but will, rather, result in limiting their rights as law-abiding citizens. It is with this in mind I would now like to ensure their voices have become an important part of this debate. I have several quotes from Americans across the country who oppose these measures and wish Senators to stand up for them and their constitutional rights. Roger, from my home State of Utah, writes as follows: As a veteran, I've had too many ``brothers'' and ``sisters'' make sacrifices to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Their blood will not be in vain. While I believe our rights are not granted by government, I believe that documentation of these rights in the United States Constitution has helped us maintain our freedoms. Why is the Second Amendment important to me? Because without it, the rest of our rights can simply be wiped away. Jim from Louisiana writes as follows: I lived through the Los Angeles riots. My wife and I were living in Silver Lake. For 5 days we watched the warm glow of businesses being burned on two sides. For 5 days we never saw a law enforcement officer. We were on our own. My wife and I were unarmed. The couple across the street had a pair of shotguns, and the elderly gentleman next to them had a .38 service revolver from his days in the LAPD. After it became clear that law enforcement had abandoned the citizens of Los Angeles, we took shifts watching the street and who was coming and going. Our neighbors brought us coffee in the middle of the night, a night that was lit with the flames of burning buildings. Twice cars came up our street, saw us armed, and turned around. I have no doubt that the drivers had things on their minds other than getting home to loved ones. As soon as I could, I went out and bought my first handgun. I will not be disarmed. I will not be a victim. And I will not let my boys be victims. Legal or not, I am giving them my guns as they get mature enough to use them. If our government is so out of touch they will make law-abiding citizens criminals, it's just something my family will have to deal with. But we will not disarm. David, from Missouri, wrote the following: I am a handicapped 78-year-old male living alone. I have applied for and received a conceal-carry permit, which I feel is my Second Amendment right. I hope and pray that I never have to use my firearm, but will if challenged to do so. Please don't treat the subject of the Second Amendment like you did with my health care, by passing legislation that you didn't even read. Carolyn from New Jersey writes: Protection of the 2A is necessary in order to preserve the integrity of our Constitution. The ``ruling elite'' cannot pick and choose which amendments they like, and which they don't. We, the people, are sovereign citizens, and we are protected by the Constitution. Annie, from Georgia, writes the following: Dear Senator, how I wish we as a civilized nation did not have to go through this in order to defend our 2nd Amendment that has been in place for all these years. It is very important that we the citizens keep our weapons to be able to defend ourselves from criminals as well as to send a message to the government that we are not under any dictatorship. We are a free country, and we are ready to defend our position against anyone who tries to take away what rights we have. To me, personally, my guns are my defense to protect my family, and I have had to make use of them for that reason in the past and will do it again since the police cannot be available fast enough . . . Please protect our rights, because once we lose this amendment, we are defenseless and others will follow. I do not want to live again in a country where citizens have no ``voice,'' where there is no democracy and the people live in fear of what they say. I am a legal citizen of the USA, by choice. I am an American, and I love this country like my own. Thanks so much for what you are doing. Let our voices be heard. Mr. President these are just a few of the excerpts. I ask unanimous consent to have the rest of these statements printed in the Record.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program was established to compensate local taxing authorities, such as counties, for the tax revenue lost due to the presence of Federal public land. Unfortunately, the funding for this program has never been offered to the degree necessary that it would, in fact, offset this revenue. In States such as mine, where most of the land is owned by the Federal Government, this is a big problem because our taxing authorities are not able to get the revenue they need from this land. As a result, programs ranging from public education to fire and safety programs--the basic services of government--are not able to be met because of inadequate revenue. This amendment seeks to ensure that funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program is at least roughly equivalent to the actual lost property tax revenues due to the presence of Federal public land. I urge each of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act for the consideration of the pending amendment No. 673 pursuant to section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, my amendment would establish a point of order for any piece of legislation brought before this body that would undermine the sacred right protected by the second amendment to bear arms. It is important that we safeguard this right so the government doesn't intrude upon it. That is why I have introduced this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, under this budget, by the year 2020 we will be spending more every year on interest on our national debt than we spend on our national defense. This is alarming and ought to be a concern to every one of us. This amendment creates a point of order that would address this problem and all similar problems in the future with other budgets that have the same defect. While we are on this note, I would like to add that I am concerned about the amendment process. I heard from our majority leader a few minutes ago a statement suggesting that he might cut off debate, cut off the amendment process--this after he promised us at the beginning of the week that there would be unlimited amendments. And he repeated that phrase twice. It is imperative that we finish this job. Each of us was elected to do a job. Each of us deserves to have our amendments called up. We have no business taking a 2-week vacation until we have gone through every amendment that any Senator from either side of the aisle wants to present. Thank you.

Mr. LEE. Let's do it.

Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE. I would ask the chairperson of the Budget Committee how many more traunches there might be.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to raise my voice in this important dialogue about the budget currently pending before this body. I am thrilled as, first, we are actually having this debate. It has been 4 long years since we passed a budget. I am deeply disappointed the President's budget is not part of this discussion. He missed his first Monday in February requirement, and it must not fit into his schedule to produce one until the second week of April. Budgets are economic documents, but they are also much more than that. Budgets reflect moral choices we make as a nation. They shape the kind of society we will build for the future. Budgets are about setting priorities. Republicans realize we have a moral obligation to spend the American people's hard-earned dollars wisely. When those tax dollars are paid into the government, we have an obligation to be careful with them. We should spend them only in areas that we need to cover a constitutionally authorized function of government and not $1 more. That is why we support reforms to fix programs that Washington should be funding, to eliminate programs that it shouldn't be funding and to balance the budget in the process. We all know the Federal Government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars each year, and the President should work with Congress to identify and remove wasteful areas within the budget. My office has been focused on a very simple message that seems to make sense to every American: Cut this, not that. The Federal Government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and instead of targeting waste, it is unfortunate the President is using fear-mongering tactics to scare Americans into believing cuts have to come first from important priorities--priorities such as first responders, law enforcement, national security, and educators. The President and his allies in Congress want to increase spending and raise taxes. Republicans, meanwhile, want to prioritize spending and keep taxes low. The President is intentionally making cuts to government spending as painful as possible to force more tax increases. Cut this, not that. This is a debate about priorities. Republicans have identified trillions of dollars in savings that would come from eliminating waste and reforming programs rather than cutting important essential services. The President is choosing to cut the most visible items in order to build opposition to any further spending reductions. The debate should not be about whether we should cut, but, instead, how we should cut in order to preserve our ability to afford our true national priorities. Here are some examples of the massive waste: $1 million spent taste testing food that would be served on Mars; $4.5 billion in improper food stamp payments used to purchase junk food, fast food, gourmet coffee, guns, and even alcohol; $1.5 billion for free and subsidized cell phones billed to the American taxpayer; $230 million spent on first-class and business-class travel. I say to my colleagues and to the President of the United States, cut food testing on Mars, not teachers; cut free cell phones, not border security; cut premium first-class travel, not air traffic controllers; cut improper food stamp payments, not first responders. The President's second inaugural address was an advertisement for the biggest, most expensive government our country has ever seen. It was a pitch for new government solutions, more government programs, and the promises of a government-made utopia. Of course, no mention was made about the future cost of the President's vision for the country, no mention was made about how we would pay for it, and no mention was made of the damage that will occur from our increasing debt and deficits. Americans and Members of this body hear this message and get pulled into a debate over the proper size of government or whether a certain policy represents good government or bad government. We argue for a smaller or more limited government or for one that is more efficient or more affordable. Unfortunately, this is often where we fail to articulate a positive vision of what America looks like under the type of government we are striving to create. It is time to reframe this debate. It is time for us to focus on the kinds of principles that will lead us to the kind of country and the kind of society we want for our future and for ourselves. Here is the principle I ask Americans and my colleagues in the Senate to consider: The opposite of bad government is not necessarily good government--at least not just good government. It isn't even necessarily limited government. The opposite of bad government is a strong civil society. A free and strong civil society is built on the innate desire of Americans to contribute freely to the betterment of the community. It is not the product of bureaucratic, centralized decisionmakers handing down rules and regulations for the rest of us to follow. A civil society is the result of the relationships that connect, bind, and strengthen us. It is derived from the condition in each of us to do our part to help those around us. Civil society is where free individuals thrive and communities flourish. The interconnection of local communities has always been at the heart of our Nation. I am convinced our future success will be found in a return to that connectedness that has driven the American dream from the very beginning of our Nation. We see the bonds of civil society when a parent instills values in a child, when a doctor heals a patient, when a teacher stays late to help a student learn to read, when a neighbor stops to help a neighbor, when a pastor inspires faith in a troubled soul. These are the keys to restoring our faith in the institutions of civil society and away from dependence on an administrative state full of so-called experts. ``We, the people'' does not mean a collective adherence to the agenda of the ruling class in Washington. It instead means that as Americans we share certain basic values and principles that when viewed as a whole help form and secure a more perfect union. Americans' belief in civil society is grounded in bedrock principles of freedom, self-reliance, and self-governance. It is manifested in the form of historic American institutions, including the family, schools, churches, private groups, and civic organizations. These institutions of civil society teach the morals, values, and behaviors that instill faith, confidence, and trust between individuals, communities, and even government. The Constitution of this great Nation provides the framework that ennobles the vision of the individual while, at the same time, enabling the value of the institutions to create an environment where people are secure and prosperous and free. It is important to remember that government cannot create a civil society, but it can kill it. Over the past 80 years, the Federal Government has expanded well beyond its constitutional limits. History demonstrates that as the power of the Federal Government increases, the ability to self-govern diminishes to a corresponding degree. As self- governance decreases, so too does the influence of the institutions of civil society. Soon, the ability to instill faith, competence, and trust among individuals and communities is replaced by the false promises of big government. America is extraordinary, not because of who we are but because of what we do. Despite the current crushing weight of our bloated Federal bureaucracy, we can still see the strength of our Nation's fabric through the intertwining actions of the genuine heroes all around us. They are often described as the daily deeds that everyday citizens perform every day, but they are powerful reminders of the strength of the American spirit and the values we share. We have a moral obligation to future generations to make the peoples' priorities our priorities. The budget debate isn't just about dollars, it is about sense. It is about common sense. Rather than having a budget battle between Democratic and Republican priorities, we should be having a dialog about American priorities. Republicans recognize that keeping dollars, decisions, priorities and, at the end of the day, power in the hands of the people is what has long made America the greatest civilization the world has ever known. Now is the time to return to that model. I encourage my colleagues to keep that very model in mind as we embark on this critical debate. Working together we can, we must, and we will restore the greatness and prosperity of our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I wish to extend my gratitude to my colleague from Maryland for allowing me to speak at this time. I appreciate that. I rise in support of the amendment proposed by my good friend, the Senator from Texas, that would defund the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for the remainder of this fiscal year. Almost everything the American people were told about ObamaCare by the bill's proponents has turned out to be incorrect. We were promised it would save money. Now we know it will cost us more money. In 2 short years, the projected cost of the government health care takeover has ballooned from $940 billion to $1.76 trillion. We were told it would help a struggling economy. Now we know it will help smother a still struggling economy. Employers cite ObamaCare as a principal reason and reluctance to hire new employees. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, ObamaCare's unconstitutional mandate--which the Supreme Court salvaged only by rewriting it as a tax--will kill between 125,000 and 249,000 jobs over the next 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare will reduce total American employment by 800,000 jobs by 2021. In fairness, these are only projections. Although I believe even those projections are optimistic, they certainly contradict the fairytale arguments in favor of ObamaCare in 2009 and 2010, but they are still just best guesses. The reason Senator Cruz introduced, and the reason why I support, this amendment is that the case against ObamaCare is rapidly moving from fears about tomorrow to pain that is felt today--right now. In 2008, then-Senator Obama promised that his policies would lower health care premiums for the average American family by $2,500; 4 years later--and 2 years after President Obama signed ObamaCare into law--the Kaiser Foundation reports that family health insurance premiums have actually risen by $2,370. This is one of the things we were told we needed to pass the bill in order to find within the bill a $5,000 premium hike on working families. What else have we found? We found that when the Federal Government requires businesses to provide health insurance for their full-time employees, businesses respond by cutting employee hours. Other companies have chosen to go farther and have simply laid employees off altogether or shifted those jobs overseas. Other companies have admitted that the cost ObamaCare adds to their business will have to be passed on to their customers in the form of higher prices. Then there is the devastating impact ObamaCare has had on our medical device industry, which is targeted for a special punitive tax under this law. Companies from Boston Scientific, Stryker, Smith & Nephew and others are laying off workers and shipping their jobs overseas. It is important to remember that each of these layoffs is, in a sense, a double strike against our economy. On the one hand, when people lose their jobs and their health insurance, the economy suffers in and of itself because of that impact. On the other hand, at the very same time this is occurring because ObamaCare and the rest of the President's failed agenda are weighing down our economy quite heavily, there are not enough new jobs being created for the recently unemployed Americans to fill. So the unemployed are not only staying unemployed for longer than normal, but they are also increasing demand for already overburdened government assistance programs. Thanks to ObamaCare, fewer people are working and paying into the system to support people ObamaCare is preventing from finding work and health insurance in the first place. The beauty of the Cruz amendment is that we don't have to pass it to discover what it would do. We already know exactly what it would do. It would delay the implementation of ObamaCare and thereby save taxpayer money and American jobs. It would also restore a semblance of democratic accountability to a process that is badly in need of precisely that. After all, the various departments of the Federal Government have already issued some 20,000 pages' worth of regulations to formalize the ObamaCare system. In other words, the 2,700-page monstrosity Congress passed in 2010 was only a fraction of the final deforesting product. Does anyone--literally anyone in the entire country--know what those 20,000 pages of regulations say? For all we know, we could be violating ObamaCare right now. Somewhere in those 20,000 pages there might be something saying we cannot do what we are doing at the moment. Some might think I am exaggerating, but as we were all shocked to learn recently, 98 percent of individual health insurance policies in the United States right now are in violation of ObamaCare's standards. When ObamaCare goes into full effect, those Americans who own those policies will have to either buy more expensive insurance than they have now or pay the unconstitutional fine. The unconstitutional fine was, according to the Supreme Court, unconstitutional as a fine and could be sustained by the Supreme Court only because the Supreme Court rewrote the law as a tax instead of a fine. To recap, ObamaCare is already costing us jobs that we need badly. It is raising health care costs. It is adding to our deficit and debt. It is forcing families off their health insurance policies they have and like. It is a Trojan horse for 20,000 of new law that no elected official wrote and not a single citizen in the United States has read. Then, of course, there is the slow-motion train wreck of the law's implementation. A majority of States in the Union have already refused to set up their own ObamaCare exchanges. The bill has been passed and the American people now see what is in it and they want no part of it. So the Department of Health and Human Services is now charged with setting up Federal exchanges in those States, but they don't know how. The clock is ticking. People are losing their health insurance. The exchanges are supposed to be ready to handle the massive influx of people dumped by ObamaCare onto those same exchanges, and the exchanges are not going to be there. What will be there? Well, according to a report issued by the Associated Press, uninsured Americans will find a 15-page, 21-step application that will need approval from three separate Federal agencies. There are expected to be more than 4 million of these applications next year alone. Even as an advocate of the program says in this same AP story: The form will take a considerable amount of time to fill out and will be difficult for many people to be able to complete. That part of the process ``does not get you to the selection of a plan.'' ObamaCare is going to make doing your taxes feel like a round of golf. For this reason, there are some who believe the only way to expose ObamaCare and rescue the health care system is to let nature take its course, to let it go into effect as soon as possible. They say that the sooner it collapses, the sooner we can repeal it and start over. The Senator from Texas and I and everyone else supporting this amendment reject that logic. We cannot in good conscience send millions of innocent Americans into a dangerously dysfunctional health care system run by unaccountable, if well-intentioned, bureaucrats. We will not sacrifice millions of families to prove a political point. People's lives and livelihoods are at stake. The American people are not pawns in Washington's partisan political game. We work for them, not the other way around. As public servants we have an obligation to protect the American people--those who elected us to serve. ObamaCare is going to hurt our country, our economy, our constituents, our friends, and our neighbors. It is the single greatest threat to our economy and to our health care system. Eventually, ObamaCare will be repealed. The American people will see the damage it does and demand that we scrap it and start over. But for now we must at least defund it, at least for the life of this continuing resolution--for the remainder of this fiscal year. Senator Cruz and I have been assured that this amendment will fail and ObamaCare will move ahead as planned. If that is the will of the Senate, then so be it. But when ObamaCare does start to break down-- when waiting times start to grow, when costs start to explode, when taxes start to rise, when doctors and nurses start to quit, when hospitals start to close, when businesses start to shutter, when take-home pay falls and jobs disappear, when patients and families truly find out what is in this bill, then the American people will know who is responsible for the catastrophe of ObamaCare and who, like the Senator from Texas, tried to help. A few years ago, when then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously told Members of the House that you have to pass this 2,700 page bill in order to find out what is in it, she perhaps saw what we would be experiencing today or at least some aspect of it. But either way, today we now see what is in what they passed back then. We, as Members of the Senate, have had an opportunity to review this piece of legislation over the last few years. We know what economic impact this law is already having as its still massive implementation has moved forward. We need to make ourselves accountable to the American people for what is in this law and what we now know is in this law. I, therefore, respectfully urge each and every one of my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Senator Paul recently sent a letter requesting some information from the Obama administration relating to drone strikes. It is significant that on March 4, 2013, just a couple days ago, Senator Paul received back from the administration a letter signed by Eric H. Holder, Jr., which reads as follows: Dear Senator Paul: On February 20, 2013, you wrote to John Brennan requesting additional information concerning the Administration's views about whether ``the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.'' As Members of this Administration have previously indicated, the U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our Federal courts. The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001. Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority. Sincerely, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General. It is good to have this letter as a response to Senator Paul's inquiry. I believe the inquiry Senator Paul raised is a legitimate one. It is also essential we have some clarity with regard to the administration's position on this type of an attack. It is important for us to remember every time government acts, it does so at the expense of the liberty of individual Americans. This doesn't mean government action is bad. This simply means government action always has to be weighed. It always has to be counterbalanced against the impact it has on the citizenry. It is very important we approach these things delicately. Nowhere is this balancing act more necessary than where we have circumstances in which our government action threatens not just the liberty but also the property or, most important, the life of an individual American. Where life is threatened, the concerns of the Constitution are at their highest where life is threatened as a result of government action. Government owes it to the citizens to undertake all its activities with utmost caution. It owes it to its citizens never to deprive human beings of their lives, particularly American citizens, unless it has done so through operation of law with what we call due process of law. It is on this concept, due process of law, that the 5th and 14th amendments of our Constitution focus so intently. Due process of law is a familiar phrase to many Americans. We have heard this phrase over and over. We understand on some level what it means, but I would like to talk for a few minutes in response to Senator Paul's question about the fact that in order to have due process of law, you need to have a familiar legal standard or at least a legal standard. You have to have a law that is capable of being applied in a way that American citizens can understand. They can read the law. They can review it. They can understand what the law requires of them. They can understand what it is that the law demands and what it is that the law authorizes the government to do. In the absence of such a law, a law that can be applied, a law that can be understood in advance of its application, you run a very real risk of arbitrary and capricious government action, where government action is arbitrary, capricious and where it threatens to underline life, liberty or property but especially life. There is the greatest level of concerns where the greatest level of detail must be examined with regard to what the government wants to do. In this circumstance, where the question relates to under what circumstances, to what extent the government may take an American life, the government may snuff out the life of an individual American citizen, the government has an obligation to see to it and to assure its citizens that it will not ever undertake such an action without due process of law. To have due process of law, you need to have a discernible legal standard. A discernible legal standard is not entirely evident on the face of this letter. That is understandable. It is just a brief response to Senator Paul's inquiry. It is, however, a little troubling Eric Holder doesn't do more to assure Senator Paul in this response to his letter that these kinds of actions wouldn't be necessary to undertake on American soil, that these kinds of actions would be fraught with constitutional problems when undertaken on American soil. It is difficult to understand why the Attorney General wouldn't just say we will not do this. This would be fraught with constitutional problems. This is not something we would do. Also troubling is the related point that the Attorney General has apparently relied on some legal analysis provided by the chief advisory body within the U.S. Department of Justice. The U.S. Department of Justice is something one might loosely describe as the largest law firm in the United States. It is the law firm of the Federal Government. Within any law firm you have lawyers who do different things. There are lawyers who specialize primarily in litigation, lawyers who specialize primarily in attracting agreements or in giving advice to people. The Office of Legal Counsel within the U.S. Department of Justice is the chief advisory office within DOJ. It was the Office of Legal Counsel which drafted one or more memos outlining the circumstances in which the Obama administration might consider undertaking actions involving lethal force against American citizens. Sadly, most of us in the Senate have been unable to review those. The American people generally have been unable to review them, but it is particularly frustrating those of us who are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and, therefore, have an oversight responsibility over the U.S. Department of Justice, have not been fortunate enough to review the memoranda upon which the Obama administration has apparently relied in undertaking this legal analysis. I had the opportunity to question and did question this morning Eric Holder with regard to these memoranda. I explained to him the great need we have to be able to review these memoranda, particularly as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I explained to him this is part of our oversight responsibilities. This is our duty. It is our right to see such documents, and it is very frustrating we have not been allowed to see such documents. I added to that my concern what we do have is a different document, not the Office of Legal Counsel memorandum but something simply captioned as the ``Department of Justice White Paper.'' I always thought that was an interesting phrase, ``white paper.'' I don't know why they feel the need to call it that, why they don't just call it a paper. Normally, we don't have legal analyses or other important documents which are written on green paper, orange paper or any other color of paper. Nonetheless they call it a white paper. This paper was leaked by the Obama administration to the news media. This particular paper purported to contain some analysis, perhaps in summary form, the same type of analysis of what was used in the still secret Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memorandum. There were a couple things I found very disturbing about the contents of the white paper. First, the white paper focused on the fact that the U.S. Government may use lethal force to kill an American citizen only where there is an imminent threat of some sort. Where the other conditions outlined in the memorandum are satisfied, there still has to be an imminent threat of some sort. There needs to be an imminent threat that the use of lethal force by the government on the U.S. citizen in question is designed to confront. That is a somewhat familiar legal term. It is used in other context to identify a circumstance in which one thing has to occur in order to prevent something else even worse from happening. (Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair.) An individual, for example, when confronted with an imminent threat to his or her own life, is entitled to use lethal force in defending him or herself in order to avoid that attack--in order to avoid death. But it does have to be an imminent threat. There are other examples. When a person argues that a certain action was undertaken under duress, there does have to be some degree of imminence. And it is appropriate in this circumstance, where we are talking about authorizing the Federal Government of the United States of America to use lethal force on an American citizen, that there ought to be some sort of imminent threat to American national security that necessitates and fully justifies that action. The strange thing about the white paper, this white paper that was leaked by the Obama administration to the news media, is that it redefined ``imminence.'' It redefined it completely. It defined it to be something else, something that bears no resemblance to what you or I would call an imminent threat. It seemed to suggest that an imminent threat may occur even when there is nothing that is about to occur on an immediate basis that would involve a loss of American life or an attack on an American compound or installation or any kind of a loss or a deprivation to American national security. This is a problem because, as we discussed just a few minutes ago, in order to have due process of law, you have to have law operating, and you have to have law operating as something other than a tool to justify arbitrary and capricious behavior by government. You have to have a discernible, judicially manageable legal standard. Even if it is something that is never going to go through a court, it needs to be a legal standard that means something, that has teeth to it, that doesn't just say government officials may undertake action X, Y, or Z if the government official in question feels moved upon to take such action. There needs to be something that has the capacity to restrain government action, and it needs to be--and the basis of and by operation of generally applicable standards--generally applicable rules of law. That is what we mean when we say due process. Again, due process and the restrictions that accompany it are at their highest when government wants to take an action that is designed to or could lead to the ending of a human life. The sanctity of human life requires nothing less than that. Now, there was another part of the memo that was also a little bit disturbing. The other part of the memo suggested it would, of course, be necessary in order to carry out an action involving lethal force against an American citizen; that efforts to capture that individual would somehow prove to be futile; that those efforts wouldn't work. But there, again, the definition supplied by the white paper suggested something else. The language of the white paper suggested almost that the government official in question, in charge of this decision to end an American citizen's life, could be made somewhat arbitrarily, somewhat capriciously. This is a problem. You don't want someone sitting there one day having the authority to say so-and-so is a troublemaker, so-and-so shouldn't be there, so-and- so has been involved with some very bad actors. So-and-so may in fact be a bad individual, may in fact be associated with people who want to harm the interests of the United States or may even have been involved in the planning of attacks on the United States, but you don't want the government official in question to be able to end that American citizen's life just on the basis of flimsy analysis, on a toothless legal standard. You want the American people to continue to be able to live under the rule of law and with an understanding that actions of government, particularly those actions designed to bring an end to a human being's life, won't be undertaken lightly. That is what it means to live in a society that operates under a rule of law as opposed to the rule of individual human beings. It is that we have standards and we reduce those standards to writing. Those standards are rules that are generally accepted and generally applicable, that govern the conduct of individuals in society, and both the governors and the governed will themselves determine the behavior of those involved in our society. So our law of laws, our rule of rules, our most fundamental law, is the U.S. Constitution--this 225-year-old document that I happen to believe was written by the hands of wise men raised up by their Creator for that very purpose. These were wise men who understood human nature, wise men who understood that whenever you put an individual in charge of a lot of other individuals, there are risks--risks that are inherent in human nature, risks that can be managed if you put certain checks and balances in place, and those checks and balances will ensure that no one person, no one group of people, will become so powerful as to become a law unto themselves. You see, that is what this document, our Constitution, the Constitution of the United States, was designed to ensure; that we, as Americans, would live free, and we would live free because our laws would govern us, not the whims or the caprice of individuals. Now, I do have another letter that I would like to share. This is a letter that was sent to my friend, Senator Paul, from Mr. John Brennan, currently serving as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. This letter is dated from just earlier this week. In fact, it is dated March 5, 2013, and here is what it says: Dear Senator Paul: Thank you for your February 20, 2013, letter regarding the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial. The Department of Justice will address your legal question regarding the President's authorities under separate cover. I can, however, state unequivocally that the agency I have been nominated to lead, the CIA, does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States--nor does it have any authority to do so. Thus, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as CIA Director, I would have no power to authorize such operations. In addition, I have asked the CIA to respond to your letters of January 25 and February 12, 2013, which raise a number of important questions regarding issues pertaining to the advancement of America's strategic priorities around the globe. Sincerely, John O. Brennan. This is helpful. This is a helpful indication from a government official who has been nominated to head the Central Intelligence Agency, and who acknowledges if he is confirmed to this position, he would have no authority as Director of the CIA to order lethal drone strikes within the United States. So that is helpful. It is still significant that we be allowed to ask from time to time what the CIA might do with regard to other persons--other persons including U.S. citizens outside the United States--and under what circumstances a lethal drone strike or a different type of lethal force might be appropriate when directed toward an American citizen outside the United States. I notice one phrase he uses in his letter, when he says: `` . . . such as a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without a trial.'' Whenever we are talking about any person within our jurisdiction, whenever we are talking about an American citizen, regardless of where that American citizen might be found, it seems to me we do owe that person certain responsibilities. We owe that person a duty of following the law, of following our most fundamental law--the U.S. Constitution--and following other statutory authorities we have in place specifically to protect the rights and the interests, the life and the liberty and the property of the American people. We are told those things cannot be taken by the government without due process of law. Now, normally, when we take away someone's life or their liberty or their property, we entitle that person to a trial. This is where our constitutional protections overlap a little bit and they complement each other. We have in the fifth amendment this protection that says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. There, again, at a bare minimum, that entails the operation of these generally applicable laws that actually have some standards to them. It typically also involves, quite necessarily, an opportunity on the part of the person being acted upon by government to have a trial. We have elsewhere in the Constitution other protections that guarantee this. We have protections indicating that if a person is charged with a crime by our government, under the sixth amendment they have a right to a jury trial, and they have a right to counsel in connection with that trial. They have a right even to counsel paid for by the government if they can't afford an attorney in connection with that. The seventh amendment, likewise, protects the right to a trial in the context of civil disputes. So these and other protections overlap to guarantee that Americans will have due process. Frequently, what due process entails, among other things, is the privation of a jury trial. You see, juries do perform an important function. Juries are there to help protect our rights. When we have a jury of our peers deciding critical questions with regard to our interests in life, in liberty, in property, we see to it that a panel of lay persons, a panel of nongovernment officials, a panel of citizens who have sworn an oath to do justice will do precisely that, and they will not shrink from the obligation to enforce the demands of the Constitution. They will not shrink to enforce the demands of the law. They will not shrink from their duties, and they will not see themselves as part of a government establishment. This is how our constitution protects us and insulates us from the government because we are the people; and we, the people, control the government. We, the people, have the right to a jury trial. And when we actually get a jury trial, we are able to see our rights protected. So, in response to the Senator's question, I do think there are some problems that we confront as a society. I think the security of the United States is, of course, of paramount importance. We need to protect American national security. We need to protect Americans. As we do so, we also need to protect the inalienable rights of individual Americans to the due process guarantees that are hundreds of years old, that extend at least as far back as the drafting and ratification of our constitution, and are, of course, much older than that. They are centuries, indeed, they are millennia old. We must continue to honor them.

Mr. LEE. A question I have with regard to an issue that was raised by my friend a few minutes ago, my friend, my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, touches upon an important point, upon a principle of law which dates back centuries and has application in myriad contexts, one that deals with the concept of imminence. My friend from Illinois is certainly correct in pointing out the white paper leaked by the Obama Department of Justice to the news media recently does include some analysis that talks about imminence. It is significant, however, to point out, on page 7 of that white paper the administration goes on to essentially eviscerate that concept of imminence. In fact it makes clear that this condition, that is the condition dealing with imminence, with the idea of protecting an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States ``does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.'' That is at the top of the first full paragraph on page 7 of the very same white paper that my friend from Illinois was quoting. In response to that question, it is important to point out that they have taken the imminence out of imminent. There is no more imminence in this standard. So if, in fact, we are to believe the white paper is the correct assessment of the administration's position, it is no longer an imminent standard. It is something else. It is something of a new development. It is something that was created out of whole cloth by this administration that has nothing to do with the traditional imminent standard. I ask my friend from Kentucky whether this is consistent with time- honored notions of due process.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. If we are dealing with something that is imminent, we are talking about something that is about to occur, and it is urgent. That typically is the standard any time government officials in other contexts, law enforcement, for example--sometimes regretfully and tragically, law enforcement officers need to make a spur-of-the-moment judgment call in order to protect human life. Sometimes in doing that they have to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do. It always turns on some kind of an imminent standard. It always turns on some kind of an emergent threat, something that is about to occur, that is occurring at the moment. Yet we are told in black and white right here in this white paper this condition, imminence, does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. That begs the question, what then is the standard. Who then makes this determination? Presumably it is the President of the United States. Perhaps it is others reporting up in the chain of command to the President of the United States. If actual imminence isn't required as part of this ostensibly imminent standard, what then is the standard? Is there any at all? If there is a standard, is it so wide, is it so broad you could drive a 747 right through it? If that is the case, how is that compatible with time-honored notions of due process, those notions deeply embedded in our founding documents, those notions we understand come from God and cannot be revoked by any government? I wish I could say the imminence standard problem in the Department of Justice white paper is the only problem. It is not. We look to the very next page, the page dealing with feasibility of capture. One of the other standards outlined in the Department of Justice white paper outlining the circumstances in which the government of the United States may take a human life using a drone in a case involving a U.S. citizen is that the capture must be infeasible, and the United States must be continuing to monitor whether capture becomes feasible at some point. As to this standard on page 8 of the Department of Justice white paper, it says: Second, regarding to the feasibility of capture, capture would not be feasible if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country were to decline to consent to a capture operation. Other factors such as undue risk to U.S. personnel conducting a potential capture operation could also be relevant. Feasibility would be a highly fact-specific and potentially time-sensitive inquiry. In other words, they are saying it has to be something that could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window. What is the relevant window? The white paper makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to define what the relevant window is. Who then makes this determination, and according to what factors is that determination made? Here yet again we have a standardless standard. We have a standard that is so broad, so malleable, so easily subject to so many varying interpretations, no one can reasonably look into this and decide who the government may kill with a drone and who the government may not kill with a drone. That is a problem, and that, it seems to me, is fundamentally incompatible with time-honored notions of due process. Would the Senator not agree with that assessment?

Mr. LEE. Was the Senator aware of the fact some of us asked Attorney General Holder for a more robust analysis than the series of memoranda authored by the Office of Legal Counsel, the U.S. Department of Justice's chief advisory body, and the fact that so far the Department of Justice has declined to make those available to members of the Judiciary Committee?

Mr. LEE. If I may supplement that question by describing what I encountered in connection with that, I expressed frustration to the Attorney General over the fact that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee--who have significant oversight responsibilities with regard to the operation of the U.S. Department of Justice--have not had access to that memorandum. This is part of our oversight responsibilities. This is something we ought to be able to see, and so far it is not something we have been able to see. I encouraged the Attorney General to make available to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee those very documents, which he claimed add some additional insight and would give us some additional analysis above and beyond what this white paper is saying. I thought that might be relevant to the Senator in addressing my question.

Mr. LEE. The issues we are discussing are of profound importance to the American people for the reasons Senator Paul has identified. Americans have every reason to be concerned anytime decisions are made by government that impair one of the fundamental God-given protected rights that Americans have. Anytime the government wants to intrude upon life or liberty or property, it must do so in a way that comports with time-honored, centuries-old understandings of due process. The rule of law, in other words, must operate in order to protect those God-given interests to make sure they are not arbitrarily, capriciously deprived of any citizen. We are talking about the sanctity of human life. When the interest at stake is not just liberty or property but life itself, we have to protect it. We have to take steps to protect that. So I think it is important we carefully scrutinize and evaluate any government program that has the potential to deprive any American citizen of his or her life without due process of law. I was concerned, as was Senator Paul, recently, when the Obama administration leaked what was characterized as a Department of Justice white paper outlining the circumstances--outlining the legal criteria that this administration would use in deciding when and whether and under what circumstances to snuff out human life, the human life of an American citizen no less, using a drone. The memorandum started out with certain somewhat predictable or familiar concepts. The memorandum started out by explaining an imminent standard, explaining that certainly could not happen absent an imminent threat to American national security, an imminent threat to American life, for example. When we think of imminence, we think of something that is emergent, we think of an emergency, something that is going on at the moment, which unless interrupted presents some kind of a dangerous threat. Significantly, however, this is not how the Department of Justice white paper actually read. Although it used the word ``imminence,'' it defined imminence as something far different than we normally think of, than we as American citizens use this kind of language, certainly in any legal or constitutional analytical context. If I could read from that memorandum, I would point out this condition of imminence is described as follows. It says: The condition that an operational leader--an operational leader of a group presenting a threat to the United States--presented imminent threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. Wouldn't it be the Senator's understanding if something is imminent, it would need to be something occurring immediately?

Mr. LEE. Would the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?

Mr. LEE. In response to Senator Paul's question, I would like to add to the Senator's remarks and those of the junior Senator from Texas the fact that in the concluding paragraph of the Department of Justice white paper on this issue, the Department concludes as follows: In sum, an operation in the circumstances and under the constraints described above would not result in a violation of any due process rights. It is a rather interesting conclusion, in light of the fact that two out of the three analytical points outlined above in the memorandum, in the white paper are themselves so broad as to be arguably meaningless or, at a minimum, capable of being interpreted in such a way as to subject American citizens to the arbitrary deprivation of their own right to live. First, as I mentioned earlier, by proposing an imminent standard that leaves out anything imminent--in other words, it is not just peanut butter without the jelly; it is peanut butter without the peanut butter. There is no ``there'' there--they define out of existence the very imminent standard they purport to create and follow. That is not due process. It is the opposite of due process. Secondly, they outline a set of circumstances in which this attack may occur, where capture is infeasible, and then they define an understanding of feasibility that is so broad as to render it virtually meaningless. So at the conclusion of the memo--and the memo says: In sum, an operation in the circumstances and under the constraints described above would not result in a violation of any due process rights. It is describing constraints that are not really constraints, and that is a problem. That amounts to a deprivation of due process. In light of these circumstances, I think it really is imperative the American people, or those who serve in this body--at a minimum, those who serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee--be given an opportunity to review the wholesale legal analyses identified by the Attorney General today that have been prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice. This is the chief advisory body within the U.S. Department of Justice. It is the job of the fine lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel to render this advice, and we ought to have the benefit of that. At a minimum, we ought to have the benefit of that within the Senate Judiciary Committee. So when I asked the Attorney General this morning whether he would make those available, I was surprised and a little frustrated when he declined to offer them immediately. He said he would check in with those he needed to consult with. I reminded him he is the Attorney General, and he does, in fact, supervise those who work in the Department of Justice. I hope that is satisfactory and in response to the Senator's question.

Mr. LEE. If the Senator will yield for a question, I will ask if the Senator was aware of the exchange some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had with Attorney General Holder this morning on the subject.